생계보장에 대한 헌법상 권리 논의 전개

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Although the plight of the poor in the U.S. is obviously a serious and national disgrace, there is little likelihood that the United States Supreme Court will provide a solution. The idea of a constitutional right to livelihood runs against deeply embedded social attitudes in the U. S. But some prominent scholars such as Charles Black, Peter Edelman, and Frank Michelman, already have begun to advance arguments for such a constitutional right to livelihood. Those scholars believe on a constitutional right to minimum subsistence. Those views accepting the concept of the constitutional right to minimum subsistence are especially important because the views are almost absent from the Supreme Court and rarely will be expressed even in dissenting opinions.
The starting point of this study is under the prepositional idea that it is very important to lay the constitutional groundwork for making the argument and conceptualizing welfare rights in the U.S. Constitution. The purpose of this study is to examine and identify the steps in an argument for a constitutional right to livelihood.
For this purpose, In Part Ⅱ, I describe that poverty and the plight of the poor are serious social problem in the U.S. and then consider the constitutional status of the poor and welfare rights issues in the U.S. Constitution.
In Part Ⅲ, I examine the steps in an argument for a constitutional right to livelihood. I describe beginning steps to making the case for a constituional right to basic subsistence. I argue that the Constitution creates affirmative government duties and included among the affirmative duties is the right to basic subsistence.
In part Ⅳ, I present an analysis and critique of judicial interpretation in the Supreme Court’s welfare rights decisions. Finally, I would like to close by proposing that we should analyze the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions on welfare rights for establishing the constitutional right to livelihood.